Forum menu
BBC News readers ar...
 

[Closed] BBC News readers are paid £92k!!

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#547068]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm

Now that is taking the michael.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 12088
Full Member
 

She got pwned!


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 35052
Full Member
 

Nice money. I suspect a claim for a skivvy to empty horse dung into your moat might get turned down if you're a BBC news presenter.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:32 pm
Posts: 34533
Full Member
 

hey i already posted this on the mp thread but yeah she was slapped down
license fee well spent ?!?!?!


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:33 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Apologies kimbers, i didn't see it. But i think it deserves its own thread. I'm amazed they get that much. They don't even do proper journalism these days either.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 35052
Full Member
 

I wonder if [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/frank_gardner.shtml ]Frank Gardener[/url]thinks that it's enough to get shot at for..?


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:35 pm
Posts: 14774
Free Member
 

She got pwned!

What exactly does this mean? Where does it derive from? looks like a bastardisation of porned and owned, neither of which makes any sense in this context.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 14774
Free Member
 

I wonder if Frank Gardenerthinks that it's enough to get shot at for..?

I'd happily risk being shot (at those odds) for £92k. Thousands of servicemen do every day, for a lot less!


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:37 pm
Posts: 50252
Free Member
 

The going rate in a competitive market. What's the problem with that?


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

its an Americanism, hence retarded, and usually used by retards. Spot the theme.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'd happily risk being shot (at those odds) for £92k

What are your skills CK? - I may have leads on a couple of openings for you.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The going rate in a competitive market.

Is it really?

Would it not be possible to employ an equally suitable person for that position for, say 50k?


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:43 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The old boy has got a point and he seemed genuinely shocked at 92k!

license payers money going to good use?

paxman is worth his salt, well, half maybe. don't know about her though. horrible lady.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:44 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I don't see the problem, if thats the market rate, thats the market rate. Its not as if they are allowed to secretly top it up, and then try and hide the evidence


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:44 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

She got pwned!

It's from the using a "p" instead of "o" for "owned" - from gaming forums I think. (p is beside o on a keyboard)


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:45 pm
Posts: 10962
Full Member
 

Remember this is 92K for someone in the relative backwater of the "BBC News Channel". The presenters on the 10 o clock news must get a fair whack more than that, which seems quite a lot of money for sitting down and reading out what it says on an autocue.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:47 pm
Posts: 5541
Free Member
 

From typing messages in games when people quite often hit the p instead of the o whilst frantically fragging. Yes, I said "fragging".

It's cos they is l337 innit?


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:48 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

BBC is heavily unionized and they have standard pay scales, so I doubt thats actually the case.

still makes a nice supposition.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:49 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I contest that the salaries being paid represent a 'market rate'. That implies that the market is operating efficiently and when it comes to the BBC, I doubt it's anything like efficient.

In order for it to be a true market rate, the BBC would need to operating on an entirely commercial basis in order to be able to connect the investment in salary with a market return. Since it has no such mechanism (because it's effectively financed by a government granted tax) it has no incentive to be efficient, hence you get artificially inflated salaries.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 6
Free Member
 

Another thing that hacks me off is how much the bloody nurses get paid. Slackers! Could a nurse do a ghurka's job? Of course not! Then they shouldn't be paid as much as a ghurka. No-one in the UK is as worthy of financial reward as ghurkas, and they are paid in thin soup and pictures of Queen Victoria. If it's good enough for the ghurkas then it's good enough for the nurses. Parasitic, thieving NHS scum the lot of them.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

****ing hillarious BigDummy! I especially like the reference to being paid in pictures of Queen Victoria.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:06 pm
Posts: 919
Free Member
 

Stop moaning about other peoples pay. If you want why dont you apply for the job - afterall, some reckon they could sit down and read an autocue.

The fact that there is good money to be made is a good thing - dont knock other peoples luck at getting a well paid job. At least here in the UK you stand a pretty good chance of getting most jobs in a fair manner. Unlike some contries where you need to bribe you way in, or where there are no jobs or they are controlled by a union etc.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 40432
Free Member
 

Sound not working for me. I can happily imagine that he actually says "pwned" to her.

Think £92k is unlikely though, did she cop to that? Would guess more like £50-60k.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:12 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

hence you get artificially inflated salaries.

Are they actually more than commercial stations? Or US TV presenter salaries?

I'm guessing that newsreaders get paid quite a lot for their ability to say the right thing first time (news is still live isn't it?) and still look natural. 99% of people, when stuck in front of a camera, they take half an hour to read a couple of sentences right.

Joe


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:37 pm
Posts: 145
Free Member
 

Why shouldnt the BBC pay above market rate? I would prefer that they did so we didn't end up with the kind of dross that Sky and ITN get


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:51 pm
Posts: 45
Free Member
 

He seemed to think that she's paid nearly twice an MP - his maths is appalling so maybe that's why they get so confused with their expenses? As for journalists harrassing MPs - well that's what we need isn't it for a democracy to work in the real world? I don't think he helped his case at all.

Also watched Stephen Fry's bit - I tend to think most of what he says is great but not this - MPs have taken expense claiming to a whole new level.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:53 pm
Posts: 14774
Free Member
 

What are your skills CK? - I may have leads on a couple of openings for you.

Mech/Elec Engineer. Comfortably sat in a meagre wage job currently though!


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 5:55 pm
 nbt
Posts: 12483
Full Member
 

[i]hence you get artificially inflated salaries. [/i]

Didn;t that Natasha bird move to Chanell 5 news on a half-million pound contract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Kaplinsky

No, only £300,000 a year, my mistake. Nice work if you can get it, but I doubt many blokes would be as excited about me reading the news instead of her....


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 6:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[i]Parasitic, thieving NHS scum the lot of them.[/i]

8)


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 6:40 pm
Posts: 45
Free Member
 

The interesting thing is that for the BBC to employ stars it has to pay more than the commercial stations think worthwhile. Also for sports coverage - I'd rather ITV pay for the big sports events and let them earn money from the resulting increased advertising revenue - than pay for them through through the TV license and get advert free watching. Actually, I from a selfish perspective I don't mind if it's something I like but I'm thinking of people who could do with saving a bit of cash.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Whilst I'm surprised that she earns that much (I'm sure there are a few STWers who earn more), I applaud her for revealing how much she actually earns (she does not in any way have to reveal this, as she is not a Public Servant or employed by the State, nor is she elected into an office of power). And as she points out, she uses her own 'phone to make calls..

That fat odious slimy toad she was talking to gets many times what she does, without question.

Meanwhile, Jonathon Woss gets paid £856 million a year...

Oh, and BBC employees are paid from the Licence Fee revenue, not from public funds (so don't get yer knickers in a twist!). I don't contribute toward any BBC employees wages, as I don't have a TV and don't need to pay a licence fee. Therefore I don't care what they earn. Unlike MPs, who are paid from our taxes, which we have no choice over.

'Undermine Democracy'???

Ha ha! Tosser!

Notice how he din't reveal how much he earns a year.....


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:01 pm
Posts: 13349
Free Member
 

No chance of a cushy non-exec directorship or 2 to go with the news-reading job though. The radio news bods seem to work shifts and I wonder if that goes for News 24 as well.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:03 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50607
 

Rudeboy did you miss this bit

Told it was £92,000 a year, he said she was being paid "nearly twice as much an MP - to come on and talk nonsense".


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

No, is it relevant?

So he can't add up propply/likes to manipulate figures to suit his own pathetic argument. Does that surprise you?


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:20 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50607
 

[i]No, is it relevant?[/i]

Well given you made claims about what he makes then yes. Oh and most of what else you posed I agree with and can't say I was shocked as it's be revealed before, in fact not sure but some tool a pay cut a few years ago to put them under £100k.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Oh, right.

He's not an MP.

Large, and quite important point, here....


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 12088
Full Member
 

its an Americanism, hence retarded, and usually used by retards. Spot the theme.

I'd just like to apologise to the thread, in particular to richc, for my completely unacceptable use of the internet slang "pwned". To clear up any misunderstanding, the message I wished to communicate was my belief that Lord Foulkes was able to score a significant tactical victory during his argument with the presenter Carrie Gracie, turning the tables on his attacker with a most robust ad hominem defence.

Oh, and to suggest an Americanism is, by definition, retarded - that's ridiculous.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:29 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50607
 

He's not an MP.

Large, and quite important point, here....

Oh errrr

Quick look over there.

/runs away.

/creeps back in

[i]Oh, and to suggest an Americanism is, by definition, retarded - that's ridiculous. [/i]

Even more so when it's not an Americanism.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Where? What? Eh?

Where's he gone...?

😉 😆


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:39 pm
 Drac
Posts: 50607
 

I could blame being on nights but it's more my lack of any interest in politics was nearly as bad as trying to follow a football match on the radio last night. I had no idea who was trying to score goals unless they said the team and not just the player.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Susanna Reid is worth every penny 😉

She was on the couch with Darcey Bussel yesterday 😛


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Hang on, hang on...

... she does pay for all her own phone calls. Clearly that is going to severely dent that £92k. I mean she's probably not getting paid much more than the average working class family takes home if you take into account the kids dole money.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:47 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

RudeBoy, do you know what Lord 'what ever his name is' earns? Do you also not think that 'some' if not 'most' MP's are probably doing a decent job for the 60K a year they earn? I think they prob do more than that news presenter does for her 92k a year.

I think most of what Lord thingy said was fair, and I also agree with what Stepehn Fry said, we really need to bring this much media attention to more IMPORTANT matters...


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:50 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I don't think we pay them enough

But to fleece the tax payer as some sort of tax free bonus is not on

I've had loads of jobs that didn't pay well but I didn't steal from my employer to 'bump it up a bit'
They should have a word with whoever it is who decides what they should get paid - oh, hang on a minute .............


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 7:54 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Si; I don't really care what she earns. It's irrelevant. She works for an essentially private company (albeit State regulated). She is not payed through taxpayers' money.

I personally think journalists do a pretty good job, overall. Quite why this fat slimeball thinks he, or any other politician, is beyond scrutiny, shows the contempt in which HE holds 'democracy'. Scurrilous bastard.

Journalists report the news. If the news is that MPs are scamming the nation, then the people have a right to know about this. In this case, journalists are indeed doing an important job.

MPs, on the other hand, are little more than line managers, who tell other people what to do. Many of them have very little real knowledge of what people really need in society anyway; if they really cared, why are they spending OUR money on their own personal luxuries? Scum.

Toad of Toad Hall is just pissed off, because all the little 'perks' are being uncovered. Their 'nice little earners' are under threat.

I'd quite like to see people like him out of a job.

Then President RudeBoy can take over; sort this nation out, do the job as it [i]should[/i] be done.


 
Posted : 12/05/2009 8:12 pm
Page 1 / 2